Reviewer Guidelines

Selçuk Dental Journal aims to publish original and important articles using a double-blind review model. For this reason, we ask reviewers to help us evaluate the article submissions we receive. Information about the article evaluation process, how to become a referee, and how the reviews should be done are given below. In addition, the requirements for an objective review are adopted based on the COPE Principles.

Selection of Reviewers
When selecting referees, experts with a PhD degree or publications related to the submitted articles are preferred.
The information of the experts working in Turkey can be accessed from YÖK Academic website and the information of the experts working abroad can be accessed from Publons.

Duties and Responsibilities of Reviewers
1) Objectivity: Referees should evaluate objectively, free from personal bias. Referees should clearly express their decisions and evaluations.
2) Contribution to Editorial Decision: Peer reviews provide authors with the opportunity to see the shortcomings of their manuscripts and improve them. It helps the editor in the decision-making process. For this reason, referees who consider themselves inadequate in the subject and who cannot make a timely evaluation should not accept the evaluation.
3) Confidentiality: Confidentiality of submitted manuscripts should be respected. Reviewers should not share their reviews with anyone. The information in the relevant study should not be used in their own studies without the express written permission of the author. No gain or profit should be sought.
4) Sensitivity to Violations of Research and Publication Ethics: Be alert to possible ethical issues and report them to the editor.
5) Conflict of Interest: Reviewers should not agree to review a manuscript with potential conflicts of interest arising from their relationship with the authors or the institutions with which the manuscript is affiliated.
6) Citation Request for Reviewer: Referees may offer citations to the author for purely scientific purposes, but this should not be for the purpose of increasing the number of citations for the referee or his/her co-authors. Code of Ethics for Reviewers

Conducting a Review
Referees' evaluations should be objective. During the review process, reviewers are expected to consider the following points.
- Does the article contain new and important information?
- Does the abstract clearly and accurately describe the content of the article?
- Is the methodology described in a coherent and understandable way?
- Are the interpretations and conclusions supported by the findings?
- Are adequate references given to other studies in the field?
- Is the language quality adequate?
- Does the abstract/abstract/keywords/keywords accurately reflect the content of the article?

Editor Guidelines

Duties and Responsibilities of Editors
Coordinate the Referee Process
The editor should be impartial, fair and complete the process as soon as possible. At least two external reviewers should be consulted, and additional reviewers should be consulted when necessary.
Identification of Reviewers
The editor will select reviewers with appropriate expertise in the relevant field, taking into account the need for appropriate, inclusive and diverse representation.
Protecting Confidentiality
The editor should ensure that all submissions between reviewers and authors are treated confidentially. In cases of suspected research misconduct, the editor may share limited information with editors of other journals in consultation with the publisher. The editor must protect the identity of reviewers. Information contained in submitted manuscripts should not be used by the editor for study or for profit without the express written permission of the author.
Impartiality
The editor should evaluate submitted manuscripts without regard to race, gender, sexual orientation, religious beliefs, ethnicity, citizenship or political philosophy of the authors.
Investigation of Allegations
An editor who finds convincing evidence of ethical violations should contact the Editorial Board and the Publisher to have the manuscript corrected, retracted, or otherwise amended.
Conflict of Interest
In addition, the editor should not be involved in decisions on manuscripts written by him/herself or family members, and such work should be subject to all the usual procedures of the journal. The editor should follow the ICMJE guidelines on disclosure of potential conflicts of interest by authors and reviewers.
Publication Decision
The Editor is responsible for reviewing the referee reports sent to the journal and deciding on the articles to be published. The Editor must comply with the policies set by the Editorial Board.
Citation Request to the Journal
The editor may not request citation of an article published in his/her own or other journals except for purely scientific reasons.
Correction, Retraction, Publication of an Expression of Concern
Editors may consider publishing a correction if they find minor errors in the previously published article, if they do not affect the findings, interpretations and conclusions. However, in the case of major errors/violations that invalidate the findings and conclusions, retraction of the article may be considered. If there is a possibility that the authors may have misused the publication or research, editors should consider issuing a statement of concern if the findings are found to be unreliable. COPE and ICJME guidelines regarding correction, retraction or expression of concern are considered.